POTPOURRI

Two notes about links first. #1, I got a hit from whatevs (dot org), which seems like a site I will enjoy, now that I know about it (I especially like their insanely detailed reviews of every Saturday Night Live show of the season) -- but I can not for the life of me figure out where a link to my blog exists on the site. How did someone click to my site, when there is no link to be clicked?

And #2: damn. I knew Mike's blog was popular... or I thought I knew. I mean, he's linked to me before, and I've gotten a decent amount of traffic from it. But with one four word link to my Smallville post from Saturday, "Jimmy did what now?" (that is the entirety of the link), I got a veritable avalanche of hits. And they keep coming. It must be over 200 click-throughs so far, with no sign of abating. Wow. People like Mike. I think the mystery of the link helped -- Who's Jimmy? What did he do? -- but I was, and am, just floored by it. Well, greetings to all of you! Unless you never come back. In which case, Good riddance! Who needs you?? I'll be fine here by myself. All alone. In the dark. Going blind....

---

I hate Michael Medved.

I've hated him for a long, long time, because, well, his taste in movies sucks. In later years, I grew to hate him even more, as his reviews became a blatant conduit for his extreme right wing political/religious agenda, all but devoid of any genuine cinematic critique. Sometime in the last few years, in fact, he abandoned altogether any semblance of being an impartial critic when he became a right wing radio commentator in the mold of Rush Limbaugh. But his recent affront against the movie-going public is simply beyond the pale.

Roger Ebert writes about what Medved has done at his site. But before I give you the link, a warning: he discusses in detail Medved's misdeeds. What Medved has done is to spoil the plot of Million Dollar Baby out of pure, unmitigated, unprofessional spite, because it conflicts with his reactionary worldview. To even suggest that there is a spoiler in Million Dollar Baby is perhaps a spoiler in and of itself (as Ebert acknowledges). But the rest of the article really spoils it. So check it out only if you've already seen the movie, or are aware of the plot.

Here is the link.

Limbaugh is guilty of the same crime, but that's less shocking, because Limbaugh is well known to be a big fat idiot. But Medved was once, supposedly, a pro. He allegedly possessed a modicum of journalistic integrity. He clearly does not now, if indeed he ever did. Would he deliberately spoil a first-time viewer's experience of Citizen Kane, or Psycho, or The Sixth Sense? Presumably not. But he has no problem doing so with Million Dollar Baby, has no qualms about revealing every single detail of the plot on Pat Robertson's 700 Club, because his religious and political views are so unreasonable and extreme that he can not settle for anything less than ruining the movie for anyone who might be unlucky enough to encounter his diatribe disguised as review. Here is how around the bend Medved is: his website (which I will not dignify with a link) -- motto: "It's cool to be conservative" (seriously) -- proudly features a link to James Dobson's lunatic attack on Spongebob Squarepants and the We Are Family organization.

The punchline to all this, of course, is that the film is produced and directed by and stars Clint Eastwood, who is a Republican. When Clint Eastwood isn't right wing enough for you, when a guy who recently threatened to kill Michael Moore (jokingly or not) is too liberal for your liking, well, buddy, you are beyond the point of no return.

It baffles me, it really does, the behavior of today's right wing. As Christine Todd Whitman -- a Republican I can respect -- will gladly tell you, in 2005, it's not enough to simply be Republican. Now, you have to be on the extreme right of the extreme right -- or you're as much an enemy as the Democrats.

Well, this got off on more of a political rant that I'd intended. Suffice it to say: Michael Medved sucks ass.

MOVIES: 2005 Oscar Nominations

Wow, before even updating today, I've got over 130 hits! Just a couple short weeks ago, I would've counted that as exceptional for a full day. With two updates. But I've been getting a steady and regular flow of new visitors here recently, thanks to a most kind and complimentary number of links (especially to my Golden Globes coverage) from many of you other bloggers. Such as Johnny Bacardi, House of the Ded (twice), the very interestingly named How To Be Free (and Save the World... Eventually), Crocodile Caucus, Precocious Curmudgeon, Blog THIS, Pal!, Thrilling Adventures, Clandestine Critic, Pop Culture Gadabout, Motime Like the Present, Fred Sez, and especially Cognitive Dissonance, which I don't think has linked specifically to me any time recently (as the others I mentioned have), but whose sidebar link to me has brought this blog more traffic than anything other than the Comic Weblogs Updates page, and Misty May's ass (I'm the #5 site on Google for that phrase -- yay me?).

To all of those above, to the always-supportive ACAPCWOVCCAOE, and to any others I may have missed because I'm a doofus, a most sincere thank you. It's a great feeling, knowing someone is out there looking at the crazy-ass things I write.

---

Enough of the blibbity-blab! On to the important stuff: this morning's Oscar nominations. You know, I actually considered getting up at 5:30 this morning and blogging the nominations press conference (announced by Adrien Brody -- who, much like David Schwimmer, is handsome... in an ugly sort of way), but, well... there are many things I will do for you, my brethren and sistren, but getting up at 5:30 ante meridian is a bullet I am not willing to take.

It's a relatively respectable list, as far as the Oscars go. At least the obligatory three-hour-plus period epic which dominates the nominations (The Aviator, with 11) isn't a total piece of dog crap, as many other recent films to fill that slot have been (like, say, I don't know, Gladiator? Or Titanic?). It could've been Troy getting all those nominations. Or Alexander. See what I mean? A respectable list.

So, here's some opinions, and some very early picks. You may do with them what you will.

• Best Picture
  
  There's always one film that nobody's seen, but somehow becomes an Academy darling, and this year that appears to be Finding Neverland. Now, I haven't seen it (duh -- nobody has); maybe it is a staggering work of genius, more deserving of a nod than Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. But I highly doubt it.
  
  It's a two-horse race here. The Aviator, or Million Dollar Baby. Early indications seem to favor Aviator -- most nominations this year, Scorsese is way overdue, etc. -- but Baby is opening in wider release this week, and finding new fans, and I think the momentum is eventually going to swing in its favor.



• Best Actor
  
  This is the category I can most easily nitpick. Finding Neverland again -- Johnny Depp is wonderful, don't get me wrong, he is great. I'd go so far as to say that he's the best actor of his generation. That's right, I said it! (Wait, is he in Sean Penn's generation?) And I'm glad he finally broke into the Academy's good graces with last year's nomination for Pirates of the Caribbean. But he should more properly have been nominated for Ed Wood, or Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, or Donnie Brasco, or Blow, or Before Night Falls. I fear the Academy will be making up for their oversights in his early career by nominating him too frequently, and possibly unjustly, in his later career, taking nomination slots away from more deserving performers. As they appear to have done this year.
  
  Who did he take a spot from? Well, Paul Giamatti, for one. Last year's exclusion of his performance in American Splendor is a classic, gigantic Academy blunder, one that is almost always made up for with a nod the following year, if the performer appears in anything with the slightest hint of quality. And yet, Giamatti gets shut out again this year, while his Sideways co-stars get recognized. Ouch. He must owe someone money.
  
  Who else? Jim Carrey. No, I'm not kidding! He gave a brilliant performance in Eternal Sunshine, one that (in all likelihood) was far more deserving of a nom than Depp's.
  
  Or Eastwood's. I love Million Dollar Baby. Love it. But it wasn't Clint the actor's movie. It was Clint the director's, as well as Hilary Swank's and Morgan Freeman's. I'm glad to see Clint nominated, but I would've been happier if his space had gone to Giamatti or Carrey instead.
  
  Not that it matters. Jamie Foxx has got it sewn up. Most solid lock of all the major categories this year.



• Best Actress
  
  Possibly the biggest surprise inclusion (as opposed to Giamatti's surprise exclusion) in the major categories is Catalina Sandino Moreno for Maria Full of Grace. Enjoy the show, hon!
  
  Being Julia is another Finding Neverland. Nobody's seen it. Nobody's even heard of it. Jesus, Warren Beatty hasn't even heard of it! And yet, Annette Bening won the Golden Globe. Whatever. She's a contender here, but not a shoo-in.
  
  Imelda Staunton had a lot of momentum going into the Globes, but her loss to Hilary Swank took a lot of wind out of her sails. She's not out, but she's not the front-runner some critics would've had you believe less than a month ago.
  
  If Swank hadn't already won an Oscar for Boys Don't Cry, I might count her as the winner right now for Million Dollar Baby. But she has won, and she even beat Annette Bening (in American Beauty) to do it. It's petty and stupid, but the Academy often sees things like this and says, "Well, Swank was clearly better, but she's had her turn. Plus, she's young, and she'll get another chance." (Even though no one, especially me, thought she'd ever give a performance that great again.) I think (and hope like hell) Swank will win; god damn, she was awesome in that movie. But I'm gonna wait a while before putting any money on her.



• Best Supporting Actor
  
  Let's play "Process of Elimination!"
  
  Alan Alda and Thomas Haden Church, unfair as it may be, are always going to be thought of as TV actors. Very few ever truly escape that stigma (like, say, George Clooney). I'd really like to say Church could take it, but knowing the Academy's history, I just don't see it. They're out. (Especially since Church already lost at the Golden Globes, and Alda wasn't even nominated.)
  
  Jamie Foxx will win for Best Actor, so everyone will vote for him there, not here. He's out. [EDIT: Also, as I had to be reminded by Monty's Oscar nomination post, Foxx was a TV actor, too! Oops. I guess, the way I see it, he's shaken off In Living Color a lot more successfully than, say, Church has shaken off Wings. Hell, if you want to get really picky, Morgan Freeman used to be on The Electric Company, Ryan's Hope, and Another World, and Clive Owen has a couple British TV series under his belt. That said, it's only Alda and Church who still have the feel of TV-level acting about them, because they came to be so closely identified with their TV characters, Hawkeye and Lowell. In my mind, at least.]
  
  Morgan Freeman is solid, but his was a very low-key, unflashy role. Plus, Supporting Acting Oscars frequently go to younger, relatively unknown, less established performers. But... this award can also double as a Lifetime Achievement award, which means Freeman is definitely in the running. But... he lost at the Globes. He's not out.
  
  And that brings us to Clive Owen. Will he really repeat his shocking Globe upset for Closer? My early hunch is yes. But...
  
  At gunpoint, considering the Academy is stodgier in its Supporting Actor votes than its Supporting Actress votes, and given their selective short attention span (which means Owen's Globe win will be ancient history by the time they vote), I'd go with Freeman.

Isn't this fun?? We're almost done!

• Best Supporting Actress
  
  This is tough. The Academy loves tributes to film history, which means Cate Blanchett's turn as Katharine Hepburn is a strong pick. They love rewarding young first-time (and probably last-time) nominees in this category (think Marisa Tomei, Mira Sorvino, Anna Paquin, Tatum O'Neal), which means Natalie Portman is another strong choice. (Plus, she won the Globe.) They love sexually-charged performances from older actresses, so Laura Linney (god, is she really "older" in Hollywood terms? Afraid so) and Virginia Madsen aren't totally out of it. And the Academy loves pretending it's not racist, so Sophie Okonedo in Hotel Rwanda has a genuine longshot hope. (Though all those votes for Foxx will probably assuage their consciences enough to skip voting for her, too.)
  
  I'm gonna say Portman, but I really had to talk myself out of saying Blanchett.



• Best Director
  
  I'm with Ian in thinking Michel Gondry got robbed. He did a spectacular job with Eternal Sunshine, both visually and emotionally. But he did get robbed, so it's another two-horse race. Scorsese or Eastwood.
  
  Eastwood won the Globe, and the Academy loves the hell out of him. Plus, he really did do some brilliant work. But, like I said above, Scorsese's overdue. Will this finally, finally be the year the voters say, "Let's give it to him already"? Or will he again be the Susan Lucci of the Oscars? (Man, Susan Lucci isn't even the Susan Lucci of losing awards anymore -- it may have taken her 19 tries, but she finally won).
  
  It's tricky. Some voters will say, "Clint was more deserving, but let's give it to Marty as a belated award for Raging Bull, Goodfellas, and 17 other movies he should've won for." But some others will say, "Give it to Eastwood; Scorsese can just settle for his film winning Best Picture." I'd be happy either way, but I'm gonna hedge my bets on this one. I picked Baby for Best Picture; I'm picking Scorsese for Best Director. The exact opposite of what the Globes said -- but what the fuck do they know?

TV: Minute-by-Minute at the 2005 Golden Globes Pre-Show

7:00 -- Live! Everywhere but in the time zone in which it actually occurs! Because we can't have anything nice! It's the Golden Globes Arrival Special!

7:01 -- Host Al Roker makes a bit of a Freudian slip: "This red carpet is like no other in Hollywood, or the world. It's failed with more of your favorite stars than any other awards show." Yes, he said "failed," not "filled." Oopsie! He then says the word "bling" about 87 times in ten seconds.

7:02 -- Nancy O'Dell talks to an unusually, and blessedly, restrained and serious Robin Williams. Michael Chiklis loiters creepily in the background.

7:05 -- William H. Macy resists smacking Lisa Ling in the mouth for being the 8,000th person to ask him, "What's it like being married to a desperate housewife?"

7:06 -- O'Dell talks to Clint Eastwood, whose daughter Kathryn is this year's "Miss Golden Globe," and who could not look more terrified to be there. I'm sure Clint hopes Kathryn has as illustrious a career as her older sister, Alison:



7:07 -- Sandra Oh is married to Alexander Payne? That may be the most irrelevant thing I have ever been shocked to hear.

7:08 -- Laura Linney appears on my TV screen, and if I had something to say about it, she would never leave. She could be in a little box in the corner, even during, like, Spongebob Squarepants, or the Super Bowl. Good lord she's lovely.

7:08 -- Ling says, "Back to you, Al." He says, "Thanks a lot, Nancy." Oopsie again!

7:09 -- Now it's Marcia Cross. Holy crow she is gorgeous. She and Laura can take turns in the little box. (That sounds strangely dirty.)

7:12 -- Ling says to Emmy Rossum, "You are absolutely love you -- lovely." Lisa Ling likes the ladies! Bomp chicka bow bow!

7:12 -- There's Cate Blanchett. Okay, Laura in the upper left corner of the TV screen, Marcia in the upper right, Cate in the lower left, and a draft pick to be named later in the lower right.

7:14 -- Roker calls Ling "Nancy" again. Seriously, after the first time, nobody could be bothered to correct him?

7:27 -- Aaaaand there's Minnie Driver, who also always needs to be on my TV. You know what? Forget the TV. Bring me those four women! And a flagon of ale! And... maybe an electric pencil sharpener. My last one broke. And two hard boiled eggs!

7:28 -- Ling asks Driver what it was like singing in Phantom of the Opera, and Driver has to inform her that her singing voice was dubbed (except for the song over the end credits). Awkward!

7:33 -- Not to be outdone for awkwardness, O'Dell asks Natalie Portman what her parents thought of her playing a stripper in Closer, and Portman squeamishly answers that her parents are there at the Globes. Way to make them all feel comfortable, Nancy!

7:46 -- Every time I see Charlie Sheen, I always have to wonder: what the hell has happened to the Vez?

7:51 -- Favorite moment so far: Ling introduces Patricia Arquette, "and her fiancee, Thomas." Neglecting to mention that he is in fact actor Thomas Jane. Jane looks comically hurt by the snub.

7:59 -- Roker, O'Dell, and Ling gather to kill the last 30 seconds before the main show. And guess what? Awkward.

MOVIES: Million Dollar Baby, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

Clint Eastwood is THE MAN. Did you know Million Dollar Baby is the 25th feature film he's directed? Word. I don't normally think of Eastwood as a director first, but man, he's got a longer, more varied, and, with the likes of Pale Rider, Bird, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, and his masterpiece Unforgiven, often a higher quality record as a director than just about anyone else you could name. The Man, he is.

Million Dollar Baby is right up there with his best -- not just his best; anyone's best. Certainly it's one of the best films of 2004 (too bad I didn't see it until 2005, or it would've made my list). It's near perfect.

Clint Eastwood is of course The Man, as a boxing trainer who's never taken a fighter to the title. Morgan Freeman is wonderful as always as Clint's friend and employee, a boxer who lost sight in one eye in his final match. But this is Hilary Swank's movie, and she is a thrill, a marvel to behold. After Boys Don't Cry, I didn't think we'd ever be seeing her at the Oscars again, but this is a slamdunk. She's even better here. It's a stunning performance, both emotionally and physically.

The boxing scenes are tremendously exciting, and Swank has obviously gone through intensive training to make those scenes as real as possible. But this film isn't simply a chick Rocky. It takes you in directions you never expected it to go. It's funny, it's smart, it's uplifting and it's heartbreaking.

If Clint Eastwood has a style as a director (and it sometimes seems his style is to have no style), it's possibly best seen in the way he trusts his actors, the way he gives them room, gives them the time and space they require to generate the emotion and empathy needed to create fully-realized characters. He doesn't rush anything. Eastwood and Freeman have a scene together in which they talk about the holes in Freeman's socks, and it's so funny and warm and memorable, but it's of no importance at all to the film as a whole. But it's important to those characters, it's revealing in quiet ways. I don't think many directors would've spent so much time on a scene like that, trusting the acting to make it work, and trusting the audience to stay focused on it.

Bill Murray is also THE MAN. It's amazing to me that it took so long for directors to realize what a great talent he is, above and beyond simply being Bill Murray. Wes Anderson is to thank for that, by giving Murray his career-redefining role in Rushmore. The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou marks Anderson's and Murray's third team-up, and the first with Murray in the starring role. It's not quite as great as Rushmore, but it's still pretty damn good.

It's a visually stunning film, with a crazily inventive plot. Bill Murray is great in a role that requires him to be by turns an egomaniacal adventurer, a vulnerable lothario, a stone cold action hero, and a tired, floundering old man. Owen Wilson, Willem Dafoe, Anjelica Huston, and Jeff Goldblum are all entertaining as well, and I love Cate Blanchett so much that it's possibly illegal.

I have a couple reservations about the film. It's so suffused with archness and irony and cool that the moments which should be pure and poignant don't have the impact they otherwise would have. And Anderson, for all his many skills as a director, still hasn't quite learned how to film a believable action scene. He's almost there, but not quite.

But it's very funny, very well-acted, and it's got a great soundtrack, primarily Bowie songs, some of which are translated into Portuguese. And the ending, with everyone walking toward the camera during the credits, is straight out of Buckaroo Banzai, and how awesome is that? (Hint: very awesome.)